- Joined
- May 18, 2024
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 12
It’s really hard to decide between the 640 pro and newer ultimate carry.
The best carry J Frame
- Thread starter chase45
- Start date
Bill In Texas
Member
I've been carrying a 640 for over 8 years now. It fits me well. My carry load is the Speer Short Barrel 135 grain .357 Gold Dots. The weight of the 640 keeps the shots manageable. Mine has a wonderful trigger. I agree with the OP.
MetalMan
Member
I have 2 alloy framed 32 mags and a couple model 30s reamed to 32 mag. I prefer them over any of my 38 J frames alloy or steel
The pinto hammer less was a 642 38 +P before I fit it with a J frame 32 mag cylinder in and a 32 barrel.
The pinto hammer less was a 642 38 +P before I fit it with a J frame 32 mag cylinder in and a 32 barrel.
Last edited:
To pick a nit, you didn't have to send it back for poor quality control.
Had you been to Problem Solving School, you would have recalled the very first thing that was beaten into your head---that is, to make sure you know what the REAL problem is---lest you spend valuable resources trying to solve symptoms or apparent problems.
In this case, and having been to Problem Solving School more than once, let me suggest poor quality control is merely a symptom of the REAL problem---------that of a changing philosophy---from We will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price, to We will be successful if we build the product for the lowest possible cost.
Now this change didn't happen overnight, and when it started is rightfully a matter of opinion. My opinion is it started 60+ years ago, when the "4 screw" hand ejectors came along. We'll likely be hard pressed to find anybody who had a conniption fit over that, but then again we won't be hard pressed see the cost reduction accompanying it.
That goes like this: We got rid of the need for one little screw(and its hole) and all it cost was a redesigned sideplate which eliminated the need for the screw and its hole. So how much did we reduce our cost---times the number of affected hand ejector revolvers produced thereafter----an insignificant amount---or A BUNCH---and nobody fussed about it. That's pretty cool------what's next---and what comes after that----and-------
Methinks a casual observer of our ongoing fussing and fuming about this and that will see the handwriting on the wall!!
Ralph Tremaine---a Problem Solving Student---and subsequently a practitioner
Had you been to Problem Solving School, you would have recalled the very first thing that was beaten into your head---that is, to make sure you know what the REAL problem is---lest you spend valuable resources trying to solve symptoms or apparent problems.
In this case, and having been to Problem Solving School more than once, let me suggest poor quality control is merely a symptom of the REAL problem---------that of a changing philosophy---from We will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price, to We will be successful if we build the product for the lowest possible cost.
Now this change didn't happen overnight, and when it started is rightfully a matter of opinion. My opinion is it started 60+ years ago, when the "4 screw" hand ejectors came along. We'll likely be hard pressed to find anybody who had a conniption fit over that, but then again we won't be hard pressed see the cost reduction accompanying it.
That goes like this: We got rid of the need for one little screw(and its hole) and all it cost was a redesigned sideplate which eliminated the need for the screw and its hole. So how much did we reduce our cost---times the number of affected hand ejector revolvers produced thereafter----an insignificant amount---or A BUNCH---and nobody fussed about it. That's pretty cool------what's next---and what comes after that----and-------
Methinks a casual observer of our ongoing fussing and fuming about this and that will see the handwriting on the wall!!
Ralph Tremaine---a Problem Solving Student---and subsequently a practitioner
Last edited:
The heavy weight J's have always been the best for me to shoot well. I shoot my mdl 36 and mdl 60 a bit better than my mdl 38, and a lot better than my 637. Heaviest J's to lightest J's.
I have said more than once that the Model 640 is the best-all-around personal defense weapon ever made.
I prefer the original iteration, though.
I prefer the original iteration, though.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,515
- Reaction score
- 14,658
My first choice.
enjoy,
bdGreen
Tap on image to enlarge.
enjoy,
bdGreen
Tap on image to enlarge.
My 642
I have only one J-frame, an early production 640-1. There are times that a lighter J-frame would be a little more comfortable, but I don't have to worry about the stainless steel J-frame cracking and ruining my day. Full power 357 Magnum loads are a real handful when shooting, but 38 Special +P is actually pretty pleasant. Accuracy? Mine is quite accurate, even with me aiming and pulling the trigger. I can usually keep all shots on a 9 inch paper plate at 25 yards from a two-hand hold, standing position. That's more than accurate enough considering the short sight radius, small stocks, and the somewhat heavy double action only trigger.
I've always carried 3" J frames in shoulder or OWB holsters.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 588
Oscar Zulu: "A thought just occurred to me. Could one "frankengun" a model 49 with a model 30 barrel and Cylinder (reamed to .32 magnum) for a .32 6 shot humpback?"
Do you mean like these?
The 649 is a .32 magnum and the 49 is a 3" 32 SWL.
Do you mean like these?
The 649 is a .32 magnum and the 49 is a 3" 32 SWL.
Attachments
Last edited:
The best J frame to carry is the one closest to you when you really need it. Lately for me it’s been a 1989 37-1 Airweight with a bobbed hammer.
I am messing around with a couple J frame model 36 no dashes. It isn't hard to fit them with a regular J frame 32 S&W long cylinder which are easy to ream to 32 H&R mag
But, what I want to do is install a steel 32 H&R cylinder from a magnum J frame, reamed to 327 mag and have a steel 327 mag J frame. The cylinder being a bit to long isn't a problem as I could machine it off enough to fit and get a decent gap while still having enough length for a 327 mag, But the yokes both in length and diameter are a bit different between the mag frame and the regular frame. It will take some fiddling, but it is going to work.
I tried a 32 mag J frame cylinder reamed to 327 mag in a alloy 642 frame and the recoil was such that the ability to recover for the second shot suffered to much to suit me. Snappy squared
I am not recoil sensitive, I regular shoot my 2 snub 325s with 45 acp+P ammo and even have one set up to fire 45 colts. But between the fact that as an alloy J frame 327 it doesn't weigh anything coupled with the small grips, it has what I would call SUDDEN recoil. while not painful it does make it tough to control and get back on target. As smaller lighter bullets get more velocity so do smaller lighter frames. Different than say my bigger guns shooting heavy bullets
But, what I want to do is install a steel 32 H&R cylinder from a magnum J frame, reamed to 327 mag and have a steel 327 mag J frame. The cylinder being a bit to long isn't a problem as I could machine it off enough to fit and get a decent gap while still having enough length for a 327 mag, But the yokes both in length and diameter are a bit different between the mag frame and the regular frame. It will take some fiddling, but it is going to work.
I tried a 32 mag J frame cylinder reamed to 327 mag in a alloy 642 frame and the recoil was such that the ability to recover for the second shot suffered to much to suit me. Snappy squared
I am not recoil sensitive, I regular shoot my 2 snub 325s with 45 acp+P ammo and even have one set up to fire 45 colts. But between the fact that as an alloy J frame 327 it doesn't weigh anything coupled with the small grips, it has what I would call SUDDEN recoil. while not painful it does make it tough to control and get back on target. As smaller lighter bullets get more velocity so do smaller lighter frames. Different than say my bigger guns shooting heavy bullets
Last edited:
Cal44
Member
I may be old school, but I like model 37.
It comes both in a 2" and 3" version.
And both have square butts that fit my hand better than round butt j frames.
It comes both in a 2" and 3" version.
And both have square butts that fit my hand better than round butt j frames.
Last edited:
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
I always carried a K frame revolver under sportscoat. When I started as a cop (before cell phones) we were expected to take action if a crime was in progress.
Of course if you had a good Chief he may approve a .45 ACP for off duty carry. I did for many years and once again I wore a sportscoat.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
With OWB you never considered going with a K frame?
When I was on Light Duty due to back surgery I carried a S&W 1917 (Brazilian Contract) in a shoulder holster.
My dilemma this week was to chose between a 442UC and the 640 Pro. Both are fine revolvers (the UC revolvers are a nice refinement of the older models). I picked the 640 Pro so that I would/could shoot it more often. The sights on these guns can improve accuracy, which is important with only five rounds!
